Slashdot Mirror


New Radioactive Water Leak At Fukushima: 300 Tons and Growing

AmiMoJo tips this news from the BBC: "Radioactive water has leaked from a storage tank into the ground at Japan's Fukushima plant, operator TEPCO says. Officials described the leak as a level-one incident — the lowest level — on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES), which measures nuclear events. This is the first time that Japan has declared such an event since the 2011 earthquake and tsunami. A puddle of the contaminated water was emitting 100 millisieverts an hour of radiation, equivalent to five year's maximum exposure for a site worker. In addition up to 300 tonnes a day of contaminated water is leaking from reactors buildings into the sea." There was a significant leak back in April as well.

198 comments

  1. Radioactive ooze! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's florescent fucking green! Do you know what that means?! It means it's toxic radioactive ooze!! Fucking OOZE!

    Not nearly as reactive as this FUD however.

    1. Re:Radioactive ooze! by noh8rz10 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Officials described the leak as a level-one incident — the lowest level — on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES)

      first, i'd like to point out that the lowest level for nuclear leaks is LEVEL 0 - NO FREAKING LEAK.

      Second, to the parent post - heroes in a half shell. turtle power!

    2. Re:Radioactive ooze! by binarylarry · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well hey on the bright side the turtles won't have to go far to find a ninja master!

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    3. Re:Radioactive ooze! by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Informative

      nice guess but no. Level 0 is called "deviation", an event with no safety concern. Something might break or leak or even trip the reactor offline but with no danger or threat to anyone's safety.

    4. Re:Radioactive ooze! by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not nearly as reactive as this FUD however.

      Interesting choice of words.

      Why would you consider information about a radioactive leak which includes very bio-active beta-emitters to be FUD? The BBC article from TFA doesn't even identify bioaccumulation as the biggest risk factor in this current leak, despite strontium 90 being one of the beta emitters detected in the puddles.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    5. Re:Radioactive ooze! by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Informative

      Level 0 is called "deviation", an event with no safety concern.

      "TOKYO, Aug 20 (Reuters) - Contaminated water with dangerously high levels of radiation is leaking from a storage tank at Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear plant, the most serious setback to the clean up of the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl.

      The storage tank breach of about 300 tonnes of water is separate from contaminated water leaks reported in recent weeks, plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co said on Tuesday.

      The latest leak is so contaminated that a person standing half a metre (1 ft 8 inches) away would, within an hour, receive a radiation dose five times the average annual global limit for nuclear workers. After 10 hours, a worker in that proximity to the leak would develop radiation sickness with symptoms including nausea and a drop in white blood cells.

      "That is a huge amount of radiation. The situation is getting worse," said Michiaki Furukawa, who is professor emeritus at Nagoya University and a nuclear chemist."

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/20/japan-fukushima-leak-idUSL4N0GL16I20130820

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    6. Re:Radioactive ooze! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      I wish I had seen this to add it to the submission: http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20130821_06.html

      (18 children found to have thyroid cancer, 25 more suspected)

      I'm sure people will argue that there is no proof it has anything to do with Fukushima, but the statistics speak for themselves.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Radioactive ooze! by StoneyMahoney · · Score: 1, Interesting

      While it's sad that children now have to start dealing with a lifetime of the effects thyroid cancer causes, especially when the whole situation was preventable, here's how I expect this to be reported on in some sectors of the press:

      "ONOZ! WTF!? Kiddies haz cansur! Newclear powah is bad! Reactorz, what r u doin? Shhhtap!" ...or something along that kind of intelligence level. I'm still pretty impressed by the level of punishment a badly designed,badly sited, badly maintained nuclear reactor complex could take before things started getting out of control. The consequences of that are still a miniscule fraction of the damage to both the environment and human / animal health that the facility's equivalent in coal-based electricity production over it's life-time would have caused.

      I heard a thing a while ago about coal-burning plants emitting more hard radiation from their smoke stacks than nuclear plants leak in real-life operation due to the uranium content of coal - did that stand up to scrutiny?

    8. Re:Radioactive ooze! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No this is proof that our diagnostic skills are improving.
      http://www.nytimes.com/ref/health/healthguide/esn-thyroid-cancer-ess.html

      when you test everyone in a population you will find more cases of a illnes than would be "normal"

      this is called “increased diagnostic scrutiny.”

    9. Re:Radioactive ooze! by bzipitidoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I heard a thing a while ago about coal-burning plants emitting more hard radiation from their smoke stacks than nuclear plants leak in real-life operation

      Perhaps you heard this. But you can't just conclude on that alone that coal is bad. It is possible to scrub the output of the smokestacks. Coal ash is even easier to keep contained.

      Despite the sarcastic tone, everyone, even you, realizes nuclear power is dangerous. It might seem that the main question is, are the benefits worth the dangers? On balance, the answer seems to be yes, nuclear is worth doing. But hang on. Costs and benefits should be the big question, but sadly there are some other factors to consider. Given human failings, which is the safer power source? Nuclear power can be generated safely, but will it? Such is the pressure to make a profit that operators will cut corners on safety to save a few dollars. We have careful analysis and fairly good consensus on the measures that must be taken to operate a nuclear power plant with reasonable safety, and then that all gets thrown out the window when a plant is built on the coast, with a wall that is not high enough. They gambled that a tsunami of enough magnitude to top the inadequate wall they built would not happen during the plant's lifetime. They were wrong.

      It's even worse than that. The owners deliberately fudged the data on tsunamis. They had enough information to know that they needed a higher wall. Instead, they took a fool's course. They leaned hard on the engineers to approve a lower height for the wall. At a plant further south, the chief engineer bravely fought back and refused to authorize a wall he knew would not be adequate. The owners, being greedy fools, complained bitterly about the additional expense, and threatened to fire the engineer for not "cooperating". This kind of unfair pressure is very common in our capitalist systems. Might as well threaten to fire the universe for not being nice enough. Today, the result is that that other plant came through the tsunami intact. But it didn't matter, because Fukushima, where the engineers bowed to the pressure, failed spectacularly and now the entire nuclear power industry is teetering on the edge.

      The owners did not trouble to understand the scope of the gamble they were taking on behalf of everyone, and it was their responsiblity to understand. Then, having upped the risk of a nuclear disaster to unacceptable levels that we the public would never have agreed to had we known, they went further. They skimped on the design and maintenance of various backup systems. Diesel powered emergency generators were located below what the water level would be if a tsunami should top the wall. If a tsunami happened, disaster was guaranteed.

      I'm still pretty impressed by the level of punishment a badly designed,badly sited, badly maintained nuclear reactor complex could take

      I'm not impressed. Ultimately, it couldn't take the punishment. Almost isn't good enough, not with something as dangerous as nuclear power.

      Another bit of deliberate blindness too often paraded here is ignoring alternative power. When compared to only coal, nuclear looks pretty good. But coal is a low standard to beat. How does nuclear power stack up against solar, wind, and water? Not so well.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    10. Re:Radioactive ooze! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Poor reporting does not diminish their suffering. You are just trying to distract from the issue. Coal is a red herring, no-one is seriously suggesting coal as the alternative and Japan wouldn't be using more of it if it had been a planned, gradual move away from nuclear.

      My mother had thyroid cancer. As well as needing medication for life she can't absorb calcium any more, so her bones are brittle and teeth started to fall out. It is a very survivable but not at all trivial illness, and like all serious illness it's worse for children.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:Radioactive ooze! by flimflammer · · Score: 2

      Coal is a red herring, no-one is seriously suggesting coal as the alternative and Japan wouldn't be using more of it if it had been a planned, gradual move away from nuclear.

      Is it? If we're not using Nuclear and we're not using Coal, what are we realistically switching to?

    12. Re:Radioactive ooze! by fnj · · Score: 1

      "ONOZ! WTF!? Kiddies haz cansur! Newclear powah is bad! ..."

      Furthermore the dummies you are quoting can't even spell N-E-W-K-Y-O-U-L-E-R.

    13. Re:Radioactive ooze! by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      I'm still pretty impressed by the level of punishment a badly designed,badly sited, badly maintained nuclear reactor complex could take before things started getting out of control.

      That's like being pretty impressed that the kid almost survived the drive-by shooting.

      Now get off my lawn. And while you're at it, GTFO my world, or fix your stupid broken attitude.

      --
      Will
    14. Re:Radioactive ooze! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard a thing a while ago about coal-burning plants emitting more hard radiation from their smoke stacks than nuclear plants leak in real-life operation due to the uranium content of coal - did that stand up to scrutiny?

      Executive summary:
      In a world where Fukushima and Chernobyl did not happen and will not happen again, yes it stands up to scrutiny.

      Long answer:
      This factoid depends on two key assumptions, required to make is true:
      1) The nuclear waste is properly handled, and none of it escapes into the environment until it has decayed completely.
      2) The nuclear power plants included in the comparison have not exploded yet.

      In real life, these assumptions severely reduce the relevance of the comparison. There is a huge variance in how much radiation a nuclear power plant releases. Within a year after the accident, Fukushima had released an amount of radiation that is approximately equal to what all the World's coal plants together emit during 100 years. This brings up the average quite a bit.

    15. Re:Radioactive ooze! by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Why does it have to be toxic? Can't we have radioactive nontoxic ooze? Maybe if you irradiate some green playdough and get it wet?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    16. Re:Radioactive ooze! by Target+Drone · · Score: 1

      Another factor to take into consideration is the scope of a potential disaster. If Indian Point was to melt down and create an exclusion zone a little smaller than Chernobyl it would mean the evacuation of 8 million people in New York and closure of one of the World's biggest financial centers. Now the odds are incredibly small that this could happen but it's worth weighing this vs going with coal which causes a larger constant amount of damage every year. Assuming of course you must pick between nuclear and coal.

    17. Re:Radioactive ooze! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Germany is doing pretty well with wind and solar. Japan has massive hydro and thermal resources, as well as offshore wind. Although it isn't very green the US is now using a lot of natural gas too, if we are simply talking about alternatives that are less bad than coal.

      As I said, if they had been given time to manage the transition it could have happened cleanly.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re:Radioactive ooze! by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      natural gas. hydro in PNW. nothing new technology here, all is well established.

    19. Re:Radioactive ooze! by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

      We should take all these dudes who try to apologize for and/or rationalize nuclear accidents and move them all to Yucca Mountain or Fukushima. That way, they can see first-hand just how safe and reliable it is!

    20. Re:Radioactive ooze! by 31eq · · Score: 1

      Nuclear still looks good compared to water: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents#Fatalities

    21. Re:Radioactive ooze! by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      Okay, I'll say this again: deaths are not a good measure of safety.

      The "nuclear power causes fewer deaths" has been another popular but wrong argument. By that measure, Hurricane Andrew, which killed only 39 people, was a smaller disaster than many passenger airplane crashes that you've probably never heard of.

      If instead you look at how much land has been rendered useless for decades, perhaps even centuries, nuclear stands out as by far the worst. There has never been an "exclusion zone" created for a coal or hydroelectric disaster. Look also at the amounts of the damage caused by nuclear accidents. Damage from Fukushima is very roughly $100 billion.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    22. Re:Radioactive ooze! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If instead you look at how much land has been rendered useless for decades, perhaps even centuries, nuclear stands out as by far the worst. There has never been an "exclusion zone" created for a coal or hydroelectric disaster. Look also at the amounts of the damage caused by nuclear accidents. Damage from Fukushima is very roughly $100 billion.

      With the exception of Chernobyl I can't think of any power plant accident that has rendered much land useless for decades. Now nuclear testing is another matter.

    23. Re:Radioactive ooze! by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      All we need is a for profit company which is willing to pay the extra costs to be as safe as possible and to cause as little damage to humans and the nonhuman world as possible. And there are sure plenty of those around, as the history of the energy industry abundantly demonstrates.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  2. It do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Roses are red,
    Violets are blue,
    They think it don't be like it is,
    But it do.

  3. Works out to by djupedal · · Score: 1

    ...approx. 75k gals per day. or not quite enough to fill an Olympic sized swimming pool.

    Good thing it's a big ocean. Pity it's such a small island.

    1. Re:Works out to by noh8rz10 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      rephrase - the nuclear site is leaking so much radioactive wastewater into the sea that it would fill an olympic swimming pool each week!

    2. Re:Works out to by Naedst · · Score: 2

      79.3 k gals per day. Despite the headline the actual amount released per day is 300 tonnes.

    3. Re:Works out to by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

      Thanks..... who the heck measures a liquid by weight?

      But.... 75,000 gallons is a pittance, given that there are 326,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons on earth. So, that's 12 trillion years worth.....

    4. Re:Works out to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      if we're talking about water, weight and volume are near equivalent in both the sane and ridiculous measurement systems used by the world.

    5. Re:Works out to by davester666 · · Score: 2

      So, you are saying that we should only be concerned when they dump enough toxic waste into the ocean so that it will more or less immediately affect everyone on earth?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    6. Re:Works out to by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      ...approx. 75k gals per day. or not quite enough to fill an Olympic sized swimming pool.

      Question: Where does all this water come from? It's been leaking for years, isn't it empty yet? Have they got some weird infinite source of water?

      --
      No sig today...
    7. Re:Works out to by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      Thanks..... who the heck measures a liquid by weight?

      It's done all the time in motorsport, as weight (or more technically mass) doesn't vary with temperature.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    8. Re:Works out to by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's done in aviation as well, for similar reasons. However, when I pull into a petrol station, I don't say "ten kilograms, please".

  4. Good News! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

    TEPCO is pleased to announce that additional capacity has become available in one of the radioactive coolant storage tanks, a development certain to ease fears of a capacity shortage.

    1. Re:Good News! by jftitan · · Score: 2

      Reminds me of the old " The solution to pollution is through dilution"

        mix it all up with sea water, and no one will ever notice... well maybe the three eyed fish. but those are just perks.

      --
      "Don't Forget to Salt the Fries"
    2. Re:Good News! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      The trick is knowing when the solution to pollution is dilution and when the solution to dilution is bio-accumulation...

      Some pollutants do, indeed, dilute almost as neatly as a chem101 'concentrations of mixtures' exercise (some even better, if some quirk of the enviromnet causes them to form a nice insoluble, biologically inactive, precipate somewhere that nobody cares about). Others (most notoriously some of the nastier lipid soluble persistent organics) get hoovered up by the small fry and shunted in alarming concentrations to the apex predators in short order.

      I have no idea which category the isotopes currently leaking fall into; but that's always the major variable.

    3. Re:Good News! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Keep your eyes on those geiger counters, kids. Tick tick tickety means run your ass outta there.

  5. I like fish by Andrew_NZ · · Score: 0

    300 tons of contaminated water doesn't seem like a lot when you consider there are (roughly) 784,430,000,000,000,000.00 tons of water in the pacific ocean alone. I think I'll still eat fish...

    1. Re:I like fish by DeathElk · · Score: 4, Informative

      Things to consider:
      A. How much radioactive water has actually leaked into the Pacific Ocean prior to the latest reports?
      B. What is the true amount of radioactive water still leaking into the Pacific Ocean?
      C. How long until the leaks are stopped?
      D. Given A,B and C, what will be the total amount of radioactive water to be dispersed from the local site?
      E. Given D, how may fish are likely to encounter this area, considering fish migrate thousands of miles?
      F. Given E, How many predatory fish will each the contaminated fish, spreading radiation through the marine food chain?
      G. What is the period of time the radiation will remain in the marine food chain?

      I think I'll be testing my fish with a geiger counter for a while.

    2. Re:I like fish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Things to consider:
      A. How much radioactive water has actually leaked into the Pacific Ocean prior to the latest reports?
      B. What is the true amount of radioactive water still leaking into the Pacific Ocean?
      C. How long until the leaks are stopped?
      D. Given A,B and C, what will be the total amount of radioactive water to be dispersed from the local site?
      E. Given D, how may fish are likely to encounter this area, considering fish migrate thousands of miles?
      F. Given E, How many predatory fish will each the contaminated fish, spreading radiation through the marine food chain?
      G. What is the period of time the radiation will remain in the marine food chain?

      I think I'll be testing my fish with a geiger counter for a while.

      The first thing you should have asked is:
      What kind of radiation from what type of source?

    3. Re:I like fish by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Things to consider: A. How much radioactive water has actually leaked into the Pacific Ocean prior to the latest reports? B. What is the true amount of radioactive water still leaking into the Pacific Ocean? C. How long until the leaks are stopped? D. Given A,B and C, what will be the total amount of radioactive water to be dispersed from the local site? E. Given D, how may fish are likely to encounter this area, considering fish migrate thousands of miles? F. Given E, How many predatory fish will each the contaminated fish, spreading radiation through the marine food chain? G. What is the period of time the radiation will remain in the marine food chain?

      I think I'll be testing my fish with a geiger counter for a while.

      H. Ignore A through G as you are probably more likely to win the lottery (even w/o every buying a ticket) than to suffer any ill effects from this unless you live in close proximity. And are more likely to get mercury poisoning than for this to affect you in any way.

    4. Re:I like fish by DeathElk · · Score: 0

      Admittedly, I based my concept on what seem to me to be common sense assumptions given the longevity of radiation and the long migratory habits of fish. If you have data that contradicts my assumptions, I'd like to see it. Cheers

    5. Re:I like fish by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      300 tons of contaminated water doesn't seem like a lot when you consider there are (roughly) 784,430,000,000,000,000.00 tons of water in the pacific ocean alone. I think I'll still eat fish...

      Make that 300 tons of contaminated water per day, something that Japan's environmental agency says has been happening since very soon after the initial accident in March of 2011. According to NPR, the next plan is to dig a bunch of cooling pipes into the ground and create an underground "ice wall" to stop the contamination from flowing out in to the ocean. No, really

      You can trivialize all you want, but if I were you I'd avoid eating the fish from anywhere near the Japanese coast, and anything that eats there during annual migrations. Could be bad for your health. Radioactivity builds up in plants and animals over time, and it's been pouring in for 2 1/2 years now.

      If that isn't bad enough, a newly stated concern is the proximity of melted fuel in relation to the Tokyo aquifer that extends under the plant. If and when the corium reaches the Tokyo aquifer, there will be 40 million people in the Tokyo area without access to safe water.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    6. Re:I like fish by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Informative

      The first thing you should have asked is: What kind of radiation from what type of source?

      "While it had been treated to reduce radioactive caesium, tests of the leaked water found it was still highly contaminated with beta-ray emitting substances including strontium, which has a half-life of about 30 years and can cause bone cancers."

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-20/toxic-puddles-discovered-at-fukushima-nuclear-plant/4899844

      Enjoy your fish and osteosarcomas.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    7. Re:I like fish by dbIII · · Score: 1

      create an underground "ice wall" to stop the contamination from flowing out in to the ocean

      Now that's a cool solution.
      There's nothing wrong with that so long as it isn't the only thing done. You only need to keep it frozen long enough to find the leak, seal it and dig/pump out the contaminated stuff.

    8. Re:I like fish by Cochonou · · Score: 1

      You should still be careful with fish, depending on where you live. Those 784,430,000,000,000,000.00 tons of water are already so much polluted with mercury that it might be safe to limit your fish intake. See for example this study.

    9. Re:I like fish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should do some research into amount of radiation already in the biosphere from natural sources.

      http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/natural.htm

      Oceans get about a "massive Fukushima-leak" amount of radiation dumped into them from cosmic sources every few hours, continually..

      Why aren't you freaking out about that?

    10. Re:I like fish by aliquis · · Score: 1

      The problem is more that the people living around a nuclear plant doesn't dive all that well and haven't got any houses under the sea.

      I guess that's possible to fix with global warming and all but further away from the leakage. :)

      (And no, it's likely not all that dangerous but it ruin a site pretty well.)

    11. Re:I like fish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can only hope the people who caused this will have to bear most of the consequences.

    12. Re:I like fish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Or in other words, you pulled it out of your arse. "Common sense assumptions" are worth, to a first approximation, bugger all.

    13. Re:I like fish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Only long enough to find the leak."

      Well, they've only been trying to do that for the last two years - can't take much longer, right? Right?!

    14. Re:I like fish by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      And of course TEPCO is still fighting not to pay out compensation to affected fishermen. Actually it will be the government, or rather the tax payer, who coughs up the money, since TEPCO is basically nationalized now. The government insures all nuclear plants because no commercial insurer will go near them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:I like fish by dbIII · · Score: 1

      If you've got a frozen wall around the thing you can take a dam long time to find it if you like.
      Crude oil tanks of the same vintage as this plant have clay or impermiable rock underneath and bund walls enclosing the surrounding area. I'm curious whether nuclear power plants have the same precautions in place but they failed or if they are not held to the same standard and don't have to be prepared for leaks.

    16. Re:I like fish by bsolar · · Score: 1

      Why aren't you freaking out about that?

      Because you're confusing global vs local contamination. This leak is local contamination which is a completely different scenario.

    17. Re: I like fish by DeathElk · · Score: 0, Troll

      So where is your data that refutes my comment? Just as I though, you're a worthless troll piece of shit who happens to disagree with my plausible view. Data up or fuck off.

    18. Re:I like fish by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      I think I'll be testing my fish with a geiger counter for a while.

      Firstly, you'd be much better off testing your fish for mercury. This is a very widespread pollution problem, unlike this leak, and actually does harm a lot of people.

      Secondly and more importantly, the spot price of Uranium only has to rise by about a factor of 5 before it becomes economically viable to extract uranium directly from seawater.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    19. Re:I like fish by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Here's some more "common sense". The ocean is huge. A fish would have to be pretty close to the source of the leak to be in an area of any appreciable radiation. And remain there for some time. Larger fish that migrate for thousands of miles do not come that close to the shore for very long, if ever (once adults). Even if for some reason it did, radiation would be concentrated in organs that you, or most people do not eat. A fish would die from radiation poisoning before levels in the tissue that you ingest would reach levels to be toxic to you or I.

      Would I eat a fish that was caught from a dock in Japan? No, probably not. Even though even that is mostly irrational fear. But I wouldn't gave a second (or even a first) thought about a yellowfin.

    20. Re:I like fish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't eat the bones!

    21. Re:I like fish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... frozen wall ... a dam long time ...

      Icy what you did there.

    22. Re:I like fish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how much hard radiation has leaked into the oceans from deliberately decommissioned Soviet military naval reactors, lost American reactors, cooling systems from military Pu processing sites, deliberate releases like Hanford, etc?

      but one civilian reactor getting hit with an accident that would positively destroy every single type of power plant already built by man? An indictment of the whole system.

      Like a million gun owners who only plink cans, or a million pot consumers who never leave the home while under the influence, opponents find the one or two horror stories and crank up the "awareness". Is a single bad leak a bad thing? Is a DUI car/pedestrian accident a bad thing? yes. But are either the sole definition of their entire respective positions? Not in the least.

      Since there is no magic dilithium crystal or zero point energy source, there are two options: 1) embrace the highest efficiency power source humanity can create or b) limit the energy "allowed" to most of humanity.

      Plenty of people love that second option for a lot of reasons, none of them good to my mind

  6. 300 Tons and Growing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make my monster grow!
    Go, go, Godzilla!

  7. So.... by bennomatic · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ....this is how it ends.

    Should I apologize to my kid before or after he's old enough to understand that humanity has no future?

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
    1. Re:So.... by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 2

      The end of nuclear power as something the public wants to invest in? Sure nuclear power is cleaner than coal. Coal guarantees health problems and death through air pollution. Nuclear power only poses a problem when things go wrong. This is half a century old technology, and a lot has changed. This is basically my same post as reddit, but I'm glad solar power is catching up, otherwise when electric cars get economical, the power grid would be taxed beyond its means.

    2. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither. ou are not personally responsible for the demise of humanity.

      I just hope that when humans die out, we dont take the rest of the world with us.

    3. Re:So.... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      nonsense, we can extend and beef up the grid.

      smarter countries are making heavy investment in nuclear power and R&D.

    4. Re:So.... by xenophrak · · Score: 1, Interesting
      --
      Contrary to popular belief, life is not a bitch. It is far far worse.
    5. Re:So.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

      The problem with alternative energies is that people are addicted. Fossil fuel can meet 100% of our energy needs, even if only for a limited time. But we can't use a single renewable source to meet 100% of our needs directly, so they are all worthless. Now, a combination of them could meet 100% of our needs, but that's two things, or more. That's too complicated. We need just one, like before.

      The "solution" is simple. Distributed PV. Put panels on every house, grid tied, and the grid selling infrastructure and storage, not generation, and the problem is solved. Today. Using existing technology. The power companies would just need to build some storage (turbines or hydro, depending on location). It's not hard to solve, just expensive.

    6. Re:So.... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Did you happen to see the story about Germany's renewable energy that was posted today? Turns out coal isn't the only other way of generating electricity.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fusion is not hard to solve, just expensive.

    8. Re:So.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      There is no dollar figure that can guarantee delivery of fusion on a set time table. I can guarantee a set dollar figure and time for wiring every house with grid-tie PV. There's a difference.

  8. Go ahead and laugh. Might be worth a shot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Paul Solomon Readings offered a solution to this more than 20 years ago: http://koogmo.com/?p=5670

  9. tons != tonnes by Naedst · · Score: 1

    Units matter guys. 300 tonnes = 330.693 tons.

    1. Re:tons != tonnes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Units matter guys. 300 tonnes = 330.693 tons.

      It doesnt matter. Either way, its still approximately 300,000 litres of contaminated water leaking into the sea Every Single Day

    2. Re:tons != tonnes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "up to"... there could be much less.

      You're welcome. :)

    3. Re:tons != tonnes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool. That makes us just a 10% more dead. Difference matters.

  10. No problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happened to the post just after the tsunami that explained that nothing bad could happen at Fukishima?

  11. Re:useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    "A puddle of the contaminated water was emitting 100 millisieverts an hour of radiation"
    Wow! that's slightly more radiation than you'd get from a flight over the ocean! Let's all freak out!

    "In addition up to 300 tonnes a day of contaminated water is leaking from reactors buildings into the sea"

    You fail at conversions. 100millSiverts = ~2000 Sydney Australia to Los Angles flights (1 flight is around .05 milliSieverts or 50 microSieverts).

  12. Re:useless article by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Informative

    Better check your arithmetic. It's giving off 100 mSv/hr = 876 Sv/yr (about 175x the fatal dose). If you flew in an airliner 24x7 you'd get 24 mSv/yr (a dose 36,500x smaller).

  13. Re:useless article by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Informative

    In parts of the US background exposure is 1700 mrem or 17 mSv per year. So the 5 year background exposure is 85 mSv.

    In the US the normal power plant exposure limit is 50 mSv per year, and under emergency conditions it can be raised to 250 mSv per year.

    According to the news report 100 mSv/hr was right at the surface of the puddle.

    So don't go there.

  14. Re:useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You might not want to freak out, but you might not want to move in next door either. All of this just raises the question of when will the locals be able to move back? If Tepco still can't control leaks, they can hardly say it's harmless to be living nearby.

  15. Re:useless article by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

    On the bright side, you can buy Fukushima real estate very cheap these days. Uh, what's the half-life of this stuff? Gotta do a present/future value calculation on that real estate investment.

  16. Re:useless article by thelexx · · Score: 4, Informative

    Totally wrong on the puddle, not bothering with the rest.

    http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights.html

    Nutshell:

    "The corresponding annual effective dose, based on 700 hours of flight for subsonic aircraft and 300 hours for the Concorde, can be estimated at between 200 mrem for the least exposed routes and 500 mrem for the more exposed routes."

    500 mrem is equal to 5 millisievert. So 100 msv is equal to 20 years of commercial airline employee exposure. In one hour.

    --
    "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
  17. The engineers responsible should be killed, slowly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This mess is unacceptable, and because better quality work in the
    beginning could have prevented the disaster, it is UNFORGIVABLE.

    May all those responsible suffer the tortures of the damned.

  18. Re: useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You're crazy!!! 4 or 500 mil. Sv is a lifetime maximum safe disage!!!! Fukishima is tthrowing out 100 mil. Sv per HOUR!!!!!!+

  19. Re:useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if you can actually buy it at all.

  20. Godzilla by seanvaandering · · Score: 2

    I swear it's going to come true in my lifetime.

  21. homer simpson makes level 3's all the time by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    homer simpson makes level 3's all the time

    1. Re:homer simpson makes level 3's all the time by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      homer simpson makes level 3's all the time

      Fortunately he can pull a Homer and fix it too.

    2. Re:homer simpson makes level 3's all the time by bsolar · · Score: 1

      The warning level was actually raised to level 3: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23776345

      Japan's nuclear agency has upgraded the severity level of a radioactive water leak at the Fukushima plant from one to three on an international scale.

    3. Re:homer simpson makes level 3's all the time by bmxeroh · · Score: 1

      DOH!

      --
      Central Ohio Home Theater Installation - The Theater People
  22. Re:useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not reading the article doesn't make it useless but certainly makes your comment useless. "One hundred millisieverts per hour is equivalent to the limit for accumulated exposure over five years for nuclear workers; so it can be said that we found a radiation level strong enough to give someone a five-year dose of radiation within one hour."

  23. the 3 eye fish will get them before they can make by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    the 3 eye fish will get them before they can make it very far.

  24. Heh by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    We've got 'leak' in the headline for three articles in a row. (If you have the same topics enabled as I do.)

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Heh by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Hmm. Maybe this will be next...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  25. Re:useless article by symbolset · · Score: 1

    Since the LD50 is about 5,000 mSv, 50 hours of exposure to this water would kill half of the people so exposed, roughly, from acute radiation sickness. But let's not freak out. They only lost 300 tons of it and don't know where it went. They still have their other 800,000 tons and at the rate they are generating this stuff it will hardly be missed. Shoot, 300 tons of it trickles under the plant toward the sea on an average day without having ever been in a tank by their own estimate. It's just embarassing to have gone to the trouble to capture it and then lose it. No biggie. How about you volunteer to go out with a mop and bucket and police it up. You should be done in a week or two.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  26. AHHHH We're ALL DEAD by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 2

    Except of course only ~300 tonnes of partially treated water IN TOTAL leaked (not 300 tonnes per day) and the leak has been stopped. Some of the water was recovered, and soil removed. It is also unclear if ANY of the water entered the ocean as nothing has been detected in any of the drainage ditches. And while 100 mSv of Beta radiation was detected at the surface of one of the puddles, only 1.5 mSv of Gamma radiation was detected (as the water was already partially treated to remove any Caesium). So don't go bathing in or drink the water and you'll be fine.

    1. Re:AHHHH We're ALL DEAD by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

      Except of course only ~300 tonnes of partially treated water IN TOTAL leaked (not 300 tonnes per day) and the leak has been stopped.

      Sorry, that is incorrect. There are many much better stories about the leaks, but even this one mentioned (at the bottom):

      The incident comes days after Tepco admitted that as much as 300 tonnes of contaminated water a day was leaking from the damaged reactor buildings to the sea.

      Yes, they are pumping water out of a leaky tank into another one, but have only promised to remove the contaminated soil, nothing done on that yet. And the problem is that these plants are sinking, and there is ground water flowing through them (and getting contaminated from the melted fuel lumps) and going right out into the sea. That's a different issue than all the water getting pumped in to keep the damaged fuel from getting hot that has to be stored in tanks (some of which are prone to leaks).

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    2. Re:AHHHH We're ALL DEAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      KellyMcdonald78, read better. It's 300 tonnes PER DAY, and that's a conservative ESTIMATE you idiot.

  27. Water can't be radioactive by barv · · Score: 0

    Water is hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen has 2 isotopes, Deuterium & Tritium. OK Tritium might be radioactive, but its not there. (Besides it's probably worth so much that there would be a race to get it). The longest life isotope of Oxygen is O15 which has a half life of 2 minutes, so its not a problem.

    So water is not the issue.

    It's the dissolved solids or suspended solids (sludge) in the water that is radioactive. If it's a sludge, it should be filterable. If its dissolved salts, there is probably a way to precipitate the radioactive bits. Failing that, evaporation should separate it out.

    1. Re:Water can't be radioactive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      somebody never took college level chemistry 2.

    2. Re:Water can't be radioactive by Megane · · Score: 1

      Well then why don't you explain it for everyone, instead of making a pointlessly snarky AC comment?

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    3. Re:Water can't be radioactive by whargoul · · Score: 1

      You're right, A lot of us never too college level chemistry 2.
      Why don't you enlighten us, oh wise one.

    4. Re:Water can't be radioactive by barv · · Score: 2

      Dear Whargoul,

      I explained it fully.

      Water is hydrogen and oxygen. Nothing else.

      Hydrogen has only one radioactive isotope, which is manufactured in nuclear reactors. One source says that isotope (Tritium) is worth $30,000/gram (that is ~ $1 million/Oz.) World annual production is about 50 lb. So it is unlikely that any large quantity of Tritium would be left lying around in Japanese reactors.

      As stated above Oxygen has a few radioactive isotopes, but the longest half life isotope of Oxygen (Atomic Wt 15) is about 2 minutes. That means that the radiation from a given sample of 15O diminishes by 999,999,999/1,000,000,000 every hour. If you are a layman, that means it stops being radioactive very quickly.

      So if none of the components of water are radioactive, ergo, water is not radioactive.

      I must say the quality of comments on /. has diminished noticeably in the last few years.

  28. Multiply any radiation claims by 10x by JoeyRox · · Score: 2

    TEPCO has had a troubled relationship with the truth.

  29. Re:useless article by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

    If it was actually for sale, I'd buy it for cheap. In 30-50 years it'd be clean enough to live on, the high rad stuff has short half lives, and the long live stuff has lower radiation, and it'd be cleaned up in 30-50 years. So, where's the Fukushima real estate link?

  30. Re:The engineers responsible should be killed, slo by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Before you kill the engineers, I'd like to meet them. I didn't even know it was possible for mankind to create a 30 meter wave that can kill 18,000 people.

    Oh, wait, you meant the engineers that designed the nuclear plant that withstood the largest earthquake ever to hit Japan and then the subsequent tsunami? Hmmm, maybe we should agree to disagree.

    The nuke plant gets all the play, and it is an ongoing expensive headache, but there are 18,000 people who would have rather been in Fukushima that day.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  31. disinformation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the 300 tonnes of dihydro monoxide per day is the cooling system used to keep the reactor from burning its way deeper into the ground. it's been doing that for over 2 years. the only reason there is a possibility for news ventures such as this one to pick up the story and treat it like it's new is because the audience has a fucked-over attention span. anybody who has been keeping up to date on fukushima would know this and furthermore if you aren't keeping up to date on fukushima then why don't you just go hang yourself?

    and to the idiot down there who's saying water can't be radioactive, here. this is a hypothetical glass containing heavy water. otherwise known as used reactor coolant. don't worry it's already chilled and this is the variety used without added coolants. just plain old good old water. so go ahead and drink it idiot. because water can't be irradiated right?

    morons all over the fucking place.

  32. Re:The engineers responsible should be killed, slo by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

    And the regulators. They approved a design that, in the failure of grid power, a generator fault would guarantee a meltdown. A tsunami capable of reaching the plant had a near-100% chance of knocking out grid power and fouling the fuel. They approved a plant in a tsunami zone with a guaranteed meltdown in the case of a tsunami. The generator and fuel were at ground level. Putting them in a 10m tower (hardened for earthquake) would have prevented this meltdown. At a cost of a few hundred thousand dollars. To save pennies, a meltdown was guaranteed by bad design.

  33. Not reassuring, actually by Camael · · Score: 3, Funny

    Officials described the leak as a level-one incident — the lowest level — on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES)

    The fact that its reported as a Level 1 incident is not reassuring, actually.

    The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) seems to be highly subjective :-

    As INES ratings are not assigned by a central body, high-profile nuclear incidents are sometimes assigned INES ratings by the operator, by the formal body of the country, but also by scientific institutes, international authorities or other experts which may lead to confusion as to the actual severity.

    And also, under Criticisms :-

    Deficiencies in the existing INES have emerged through comparisons between the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster. Firstly, the scale is essentially a discrete qualitative ranking, not defined beyond event level 7. Secondly, it was designed as a public relations tool, not an objective scientific scale. Thirdly, its most serious shortcoming is that it conflates magnitude with intensity.

    1. Re:Not reassuring, actually by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      It's moot now: they've upgraded it to Level 3.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23776345

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:Not reassuring, actually by Camael · · Score: 1

      Well, there you go. =)

      Is it time to panic now?

  34. Re:useless article by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    I wonder if you can actually buy it at all.

    Sure. Too bad you will be responsible to clean it up.

    I saw something similar (non nuclear/smaller scale) happen in a town I lived in. CSX owned an abandoned roundhouse, but couldn't even give away the property due to the cost they or the new owners would incur to clean it up by doing so.

  35. International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale by tpstigers · · Score: 1

    Holy crap. There is an International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale. This thing actually exists.

  36. Do you belive it just like that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All you read is "Surpise! New radioaktive water!" and think it's still because of the earlier catastrophe. I belive criminal guys around the world, likely you're goverment, are dumping radioaktive waste into the ocean near Fukushima because it's cheap and the damage is already done.

  37. morons all over the place by barv · · Score: 1

    "morons all over the place". You said it. In case you didn't know, heavy water is water made with the deuterium isotope of hydrogen. Deuterium is not radioactive, so heavy water is not radioactive. (That is not to say heavy water is not poisonous to drink). As I originally stated, tritium is the only isotope of Oxygen or Hydrogen that could be dangerously radioactive in this situation.

    I am surprised that morons have the sense to hide behind an anonymous nom de plume. Maybe you and the author of "somebody never took college level chemistry 2." above are only halfwits.

    1. Re:morons all over the place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking idiot. It's not "radioactive water" it's CONTAMINATED water

  38. Re:useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who are these guys who always seem to show up right after nuke power or global warming stories and post absolutely bullshit figures? Thanks for correcting the record.

  39. Re:useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can't forget either that these exposures are not simply comparable based on raw numbers. Internal exposures are different than external, and different energies of radiation have different damage potential. The petition by the US universities after the airports started using the Rapeyscans basically addressed this point. There is a tendency for the public, the media, and us on Slashdot to try to equate exposures using rate of emissions. It is only a slight guide, the rest is situation specific.

    To me, there is no acceptable amount of additional strontium and cesium in my body from Fukushima. Unfortunately, today there is some amount in the body of nearly every person in North America from it. Your own little souvenir so to speak.

  40. Re:useless article by Endovior · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Obligatory: http://xkcd.com/radiation/

    So yeah, if you decided, against all common sense, to bathe unprotected in the water leaking out of the reactor for an hour, then you would experience a statistically noticeable increase in cancer risk. Given that everyone knows there's radiation over there, nobody is doing this. That doesn't quite mean that it's 'safe' or 'trivial'... but it also doesn't mean you need to freak out and stop eating fish or anything.

  41. Re:International Nuclear and Radiological Event Sc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And TEPCO plans to test every level of it!

  42. Re:The engineers responsible should be killed, slo by lennier · · Score: 2

    They approved a design that, in the failure of grid power, a generator fault would guarantee a meltdown.

    Indeed. I remember as a kid with an interest in nuclear power in the 1980s, reading about the design of the GE Mark I Boiling Water Reactor and boggling at the lack of a PWR-style containment building because the suppression torus "should be enough". But accidents always happen, I thought. What if some disaster caused a meltdown or explosion? Well, the article said, because there was no containment, the result of a meltdown would be unthinkable and therefore hasn't been investigated. Instead there would be failsafes to make sure a meltdown absolutely could never happen.

    And I felt a cold shudder run down my spine at the casual engineering arrogance of that design and that, I think, was the moment when I switched from thinking of nuclear power as "cool" to "incredibly stupid".

    There was a file photo in the article of a Mark 1 under construction - it was quite probably this one at Harper's Ferry - and the sight of the naked reaction vessel with the pipes reaching through the torus like an evil alien root, a cancer nodule built in steel, gave me nightmares for weeks. I had an instinctive feeling of revulsion and horror. This is a radiological disaster waiting to happen. Why would humanity build this monstrosity? Tear it out! Burn it! Bury it! Entomb the ashes!

    Actually, looking at that photo, I still feel that feeling today. But at least we've learned from this... right guys?

    --
    You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  43. Re:useless article by Endovior · · Score: 1

    True, but the timeframe presented is worse than useless. A better figure would be that, if you spent all day bathing unprotected in the radioactive pool, you could die; if you spend two days there, you would probably die; if you spent four, you would certainly die. This is perhaps relevant to local fish over the extremely short term, but nothing you the consumer need to worry about; the legal freakouts associated with this will certainly keep any fish that happen to be right there where the waste's still concentrated enough to be hazardous off plates.

  44. Re:useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wrong, wrong. That comic is so evil because it equates all types of radiation. Energy of radiation is more important than rate of emission.

  45. Re:useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    100 mSv is the lowest dose linked to cancer. 50 mSv is the yearly dose limit for a plant worker. So it would only be 2 years of exposure. Of course Sv is based on the actual exposure conditions of the dose so I have no idea how you would report a radiation source of having a Sv. Unless you are assuming how the individual will be exposed to the radiation source. Did the person drink the water, swim in the water, stare at the water? The dose would be completely different.

  46. Re:The engineers responsible should be killed, slo by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's not an engineering fault, but a business and regulatory one. Make it as safe as possible, and have multiple redundant failsafes. That costs too much, so they are axed. And the regulators sign off on it.

  47. Happened years ago by dbIII · · Score: 1

    The end of nuclear power as something the public wants to invest in

    Already been done by Carter, Reagan and Thatcher. It's just been a dead cat bounce since then with reactors living out their lifetime and nearly nothing being built. With a technology like that unless you keep on building stuff continuously you slide backwards because you've got to train a new bunch to build each reactor.

  48. Re:The engineers responsible should be killed, slo by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Don't pretend to be stupid, what was meant is the engineers that made the sort of mistake we used to laugh at the Soviets for - putting backup systems in places that make them as prone to failure as the main systems. The real problem however is the plant operators that took so many shortcuts that what should have been a relatively graceful failure was instead a serious of fuckups up to and including explosions. I'd say those are the people the above poster wants pointless revenge on.

  49. Re:The engineers responsible should be killed, slo by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The nuke plant gets all the play, and it is an ongoing expensive headache, but there are 18,000 people who would have rather been in Fukushima that day.

    Sigh, I KNEW there was going to be one of these comments here.... Guess what, I know you don't know this, but I feel it's important to pass this info on: NO MATTER HOW BAD YOU FEEL ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO DIED, THEY ARE DEAD.

    People like you really piss me off because you seem to think that if all we do is throw a big pity party then the people who died in the tsunami will come back to life. But you have really BELIEVE they will, and only talk about them and absolutely nothing else. Guess what, it sucks that they died, it sucks hard, but there isn't a god damn thing you can do about, no matter how much you talk about it. But the people's friends and relatives DO have to deal with the nuclear issue. They DO have to deal with being kicked out of their homes for who knows how long. Unlike the dead people their situation can be changed(for better or worse). So yeah, unlike your self-righteous claims to the contrary, talking about the nuclear situation is in fact more productive than a constant pity party. Moron.

  50. Re:The engineers responsible should be killed, slo by sl149q · · Score: 1

    And at 300 tonnes per day it could leak until the end of time and not cause (after dilution) 18,000 additional deaths.

    To call this a mole hill made into a mountain is to overemphasize it's size... after this is diluted into the ocean this does not even make mole hill status.

    I wouldn't want to bath in the puddle before it leaks into the ocean. But bathing in the ocean more than a few hundreds of meters off shore would be safe.

  51. SMH says it will upgrade to a 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sydney morning herald says

    The severity warning about a toxic water leak at the Fukushima nuclear plant is to be dramatically raised, its nuclear watchdog said on Wednesday.
    The deepening crisis at the Fukushima plant will be upgraded from a level 1 "anomaly" to a level three "serious incident" on an international scale for radiological releases, a spokesman for Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority said.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/fukushima-radiation-warning-over-toxic-water-leak-20130821-2sb4s.html#ixzz2caLLLn91

  52. Risk of uncontrolled chain reaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ex-Fukushima Worker: High risk they’ll break fuel rods in Unit 4 pool —
    Gundersen: Moving fuel risks nuclear chain reaction;
    You can’t stop it, no control rods to control it.

    1,331 rods need to be moved from just the #4 pool

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/08/14/us-japan-fukushima-insight-idUKBRE97D00M20130814

    1. Re:Risk of uncontrolled chain reaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's no biggie, the rods in Unit 4's spent fuel pool only amount to one or two Chernobyls.

  53. Re:useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And Sieverts are a unit of absorption, not emission. The different effects of different radiation energies and types are already taken into account.

  54. Re:The engineers responsible should be killed, slo by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

    It was a 15m wave, and the plant was designed only to withstand 7.5m tsunami and magnitude 7.1 quakes. Both the tsunami and the quake damaged the plant. Japan had experienced larger tsunami and quakes before.

    In fact the nuclear regulator warned TEPCO that defences were inadequate years before the disaster. The engineers knew there was a problem, they are not to blame. It is, as ever, the managers and profit motive.

    Also, it's a slightly bizarre argument to say that because 18,000 other people died that somehow mitigates Fukushima. If you want to go down that route then millions starved in Africa in the 80s, 500,000 Iraqis died in the last war... I'm not sure what your point is. It's a disaster in its own right and deserves to be scrutinized.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  55. Re:The engineers responsible should be killed, slo by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

    That's an oversimplification of what happened. When the power failed there was a backup system in place that would have prevented a meltdown. The problem is that it was damaged by the quake and then again by the tsunami. In fact the pumps were working and a large enough volume of water needed to cool the reactors was pumped in, but due to values being in the wrong position and instrumentation not working a lot of it never got as far as the cores.

    Even after the tsunami a meltdown could have been avoided, but a mixture of incompetency and a lack of information and understanding at the time allowed it to happen.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  56. North US and state of human society in 2013 by geekymachoman · · Score: 1

    http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-09-19/fukushima-radiation-japan-irradiates-west-coast-north-america

    In any case. Look at what's happening on this planet now with governments, governments organizations (nsa, ...) their corporation overlords, etc. You get the point.

    Shouldn't it make sense that the world unites and helps Japan fix this problem ? At least the countries that can. I mean radiation is a global problem, not Japanese problem just because it happened in Japan.

    Sometimes I think we're so ignorant and ... stupid (even though human race would think it's smart, especially the egotistical CS nerds) that we deserve to be wiped of this planet and replaced with whatever else.

  57. Re: Two Different 300 Tonnes(es) by jobsagoodun · · Score: 1

    Its confusing, but from the report it actually sounds like theres 300 tonnes total of the 'stand near a puddle for an hour to get your annual dose' stuff and 300 tonnes per day leaking of the less radioactive waste water they're using to keep the ponds of spent reactor rods cool.

  58. Really dumb question here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But could you not run the water through reverse osmosis, remove the radioactive particles, and return the fresh and hopefully much less radioactive water into the environment? (Like the sea).

  59. How much is 300 tons/day compared to the ocean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To put that into perspective, 300 tons per day are joining the ~153,000,000,000,000,000 tons of water in the ocean.

    That said, the stuff is pretty hot. Definitely not something to be careless around.

  60. So call me paranoid by maliqua · · Score: 1

    but does anyone else feel this may be leading to a very Godzilla like situation.

  61. Re:The engineers responsible should be killed, slo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Also, it's a slightly bizarre argument to say that because 18,000 other people died that somehow mitigates Fukushima.

    People fear the nuclear thing, which has killed nobody, more than this huge 18,000 death disaster which has happened before and will happen again. Therefore, they want people to spend all their time worrying about this... which happens at the expense of preparing for disasters like the one that killed 18,000 people.

  62. It's been upgraded to a Level 3 Event. by fullback · · Score: 5, Informative

    Each level is considered 10 times more severe than the level below, just like earthquake intensity scales.

    I live less than 100 miles south the Fukushima plant.
    On behalf of the people around me, I'd like to tell the Godzilla and Ninja Turtles-type of posters to go fuck yourselves. This isn't a fucking Internet meme to some of us.

    Some of us who weren't killed or hurt in the earthquake or tsunami still have financial problems from the economic downturn in our businesses. We're not all in a position to just be able to pack up and move. We don't all live in trailers like some of you Godzilla-spouting fuckers.

    Some of us have had to dig deeply into our savings.

    To be honest, I'm more worried now than I was a year ago. We're back to trying to contain events instead of making any progress toward cleaning up and decontaminating.

    I think a bigger problem is this:
    How are they going to continue to find people willing to work at the plant? They quit after a while.
    Would you work in a sealed decontamination suit and breathing gear outside in a heat index about 140F for about the same money the night shift kid-manager at Burger King makes? Just how smart and competent can someone like that be?

    That's scary.

    And the problem is not the engineers, it's the reckless, cost-cutting zealot-assholes from the accounting departments who become the presidents of utilities instead of engineers.

    1. Re:It's been upgraded to a Level 3 Event. by barv · · Score: 1

      Um, maybe you could send the accounting department for 1 day a week to work alongside the workers at the plant? Might get you better equipment and more pay.

    2. Re:It's been upgraded to a Level 3 Event. by maliqua · · Score: 2

      I think any disasters on this scale ALL the directors of the companies should be directly involved in the clean up (read physically there doing the work) or simply executed publicly

    3. Re:It's been upgraded to a Level 3 Event. by fnj · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your post. Some of us do empathize with your situation and would like to apologize on behalf of the twerps.

    4. Re:It's been upgraded to a Level 3 Event. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but you had no problem using the power from the plant, and enjoying it;s benefits. Probably would have bitched bloody murder (or sworn ninja revenge) if the plant had to be idled for what would have been called "paranoid" upgrades and "TESCO making up false dangers to raise rates!"

      YOU as consumers demand the cost cutting, both at the rates paid and the returns on your investments. YOU got what you wanted for years.

      NOW you wanna get upset at those who gave you what you demanded.

      Before the downturn, you STILL lived in the shadow of a large, old nuclear plant in a geologically risky area. Bad sh*t happened. And now you want someone to blame. Preferrably someone with money

      the whole rant sounds very American to me.

  63. Updated to level 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's been revised up to level 3 now, apparently (the wording seems a bit awkward and tenses conflict):

    Japan's nuclear agency has upgraded the severity level of a radioactive water leak at the Fukushima plant from one to three on an international scale.

    But Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority proposes elevating it to level three on the seven-point scale.

    Japanese reports say it is a provisional move that had to be confirmed with the IAEA, the UN's nuclear agency.

    This week is the first time that Japan has declared an event on the Ines scale since the 2011 earthquake and tsunami.

    The move was announced in a document on the agency's website and was subsequently approved at a weekly meeting of the regulatory body.

    Oh, and this is interesting in an unhappy way:

    Teams of workers at the plant have surrounded the leaking tank with sandbags and have been attempting to suck up large puddles of radioactive water.

    But, reports the BBC's Rupert Wingfield-Hayes in Tokyo, it is a difficult and dangerous job. The water is so radioactive that teams must be constantly rotated and it is clear that most of the toxic water has already disappeared into the ground.

    Posting anon to preserve mod points used in this thread,

    Maow

  64. Re:Fly Ash by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    Some of us have a disregard for "Clean Coal" as well.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  65. Hope that works by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    They just keep adding fresh. They are near the ocean, not infinite, but they can keep topping it up for as long as they can find new heroes to run the hose.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  66. serious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I understand that there is a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding on all sides. I understand that there can be FUD.
    Can anyone explain, like I am a 5 year old, why the measurement of liquid in every other situation including oil spills is done by volume, (US gallons, Imperial gallons, barrels etc) yet in this situation since day one, all reference to water has been given in weight ? also in particular, referencing tons, and with some interchanging tonnes and tons? No clarification of long tonnes vs short tons.
    Regardless if we are talking about 2500# vs 2000# per unit, why are we talking weight and not volume ?
    I appreciate anyone guiding my ignorance here.

    cheers.

  67. Re:Business opportunity! by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

    if made radioactive enough it will kill in short order both the pirates and their families, fences, collaborators and everybody else that comes into contact with the illegally begotten cash

    And after a while and a few more exchanges, anyone else who happens to use that particular currency, which is kind of bad news if it's dollars or something.

    And if you think that's only going to be "rich" people, you haven't thought very far. Or maybe you had.

    Either this is a somewhat tasteless joke, or you're a psychopath.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  68. How much Plutonium is in this water? by bobeil · · Score: 0

    This is the wrong information. The question is, how much buring uranium and plutonium is in this water? It appears that 100 metric tons of corium is still burning at Fukushima site, at the three or four reactor sites. From this message, it seems, the coriums has finally left the containment and burned its way into the ground water. This is called China Syndrome, isn't it?

    1. Re:How much Plutonium is in this water? by Megane · · Score: 1

      I doubt there's any plutonium in it. The uranium is basically safe if there's any of it. And wtf is "buring"? Do you even have the faintest clue about how nuclear decay works?

      There's probably a bunch of short-lived isotopes in there which are radioactive for days to months. They have to keep these under control until they decay. But it's the strontium and cesium that are the big problem, because your body absorbs them in place of calcium into your bones, and they have a half life of decades, so they can give you a slow exposure for the rest of your life.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  69. The wind turbines next door survived fine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess their backup generators should have been renewables rather than fossil fuel based.

  70. Re:useless article by Megane · · Score: 1

    But that wasn't radioactivity, was it? Radioactivity cleans itself up given enough time. The really radioactive stuff goes away in days/months. The stuff that takes centuries or longer really isn't very radioactive. The problem stuff from this type of incident goes away in decades, but is absorbed into the body in place of calcium and iodine, bringing the radiation into your body where it can do the most bad.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  71. Re:The engineers responsible should be killed, slo by Megane · · Score: 1

    I would say the engineers who put the backup generators where they would get wiped out by the flooding, and the engineers who put the incompatible electrical connections that prevented them from using portable generators. While there is evidence that at least one core may have cracked from the earthquake itself, the lack of power to run the cooling system was the biggest problem. (The biggest problem after underestimating the possible tsunami size that could hit the site, or with the reactor design itself being so vulnerable to loss of cooling, that is.)

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  72. Re:The engineers responsible should be killed, slo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't pretend to be stupid...

    You give him too much credit.

  73. History shows again and again..... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

    ... how nature points out the folly of man.

    GO GO GODZILLIA!

  74. Re:useless article by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty tolerant of my neighbors, but 100 mSv/hr in the neighborhood would definitely be a deal breaker.

  75. Re:useless article by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

    different energies of radiation have different damage potential

    The idea of the Sievert unit is that it's weighted according to damage to human health (the unweighted unit is a Gray). You're right about the internal/external thing though.

  76. Re:useless article by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

    I ain't going near it, how about you?

  77. Simpsons is right by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1

    ...because with all that radioactive water dumping into the Pacific, any fish from that ocean will start absorbing radioactive elements. Bart's three-eyed fish will seem tame in comparison, because at least you can see the problem.

    Even better? Radiation is cumulative, so propensity for tissue damage rises with each exposure and the radioactive elements build up in the animal's body. There is no safe level of radiation exposure (source: Hellen Cadicott)

    Still even better? Expect the higher-order fish (the ones that eat other fish) to end up will even more radiation exposure. Guess what's at the top of the food chain? That's right: those hairless chimps are flocked.

    Try the fish!

    --
    Yeah, right.
    1. Re:Simpsons is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no safe level of radiation exposure in the same sense as there's no safe way of breathing air, because there's a chance that the air you breathe might be a cloud of anthrax that kills you horribly. Or there's no safe way of walking down the street, because a plane might fall from the sky and kill you horribly.

      The risk from radiation exposure is quantifiable, and "safe" means you aren't taking on appreciably more risk than you would simply by living your life. Having granite worktops, eating bananas, walking outside. Helen Cadicott is a scaremonger who apparently wants to see the world choke to death on its own coal power effluent.

    2. Re:Simpsons is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no safe level of radiation exposure (source: Hellen Cadicott [globalresearch.ca])

      Bananas?

  78. Why don't they just blow the thing up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they make a big enough explosion, there won't be a plant or water to worry about.

  79. Re:The engineers responsible should be killed, slo by MightyYar · · Score: 2

    My point is that people lack perspective. The nuke plant problem is serious when viewed in isolation, but minor compared to the disaster that hit the area. If the meltdown had happened without any accompanying natural disaster (like Chernobyl), then I would be a lot more likely to be critical of the engineers.

    Sure, the plant was not adequately protected from the tsunami. Neither were 18,000 people. Which is the bigger error in judgement?

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  80. Re:The engineers responsible should be killed, slo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The nuke plant problem is increasingly serious when viewed in isolation, and an ongoing threat compared to the disaster that hit the area.

    FTFY

  81. Re:The engineers responsible should be killed, slo by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    Also, it's a slightly bizarre argument to say that because 18,000 other people died that somehow mitigates Fukushima.

    It's not bizarre at all. It's not just the nuke plant that wasn't protected - it was the whole damn coast! If the engineers knew that the plant wasn't safe, then they "knew" that those people weren't safe. Screw the stupid plant - why weren't those people moved or protected? I'm not sure why you brought up Iraq or Africa - they weren't part of the same disaster. If you want to play the analogy game, then it's like worrying about some oil that spilled into the Persian Gulf during the Iraqi invasion. Sure, it's a problem, but focusing on that completely ignores the big picture.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  82. Re:The engineers responsible should be killed, slo by fnj · · Score: 1

    It is the BWR abortions that are inherently dangerous as hell. Prove that a safe proper PWR costs "too much". There are numerous PWRs operating in the US, France, and other countries. Many submarines and aircraft carriers have PWRs.

  83. Re:The engineers responsible should be killed, slo by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    It is not "increasingly" serious... this leak pales in comparison to the meltdown. It is ongoing, and it will be for 60 years. What, you think the rest of the tsunami damage magically cleaned itself up? The whole coast is scarred, not just this one oozing nuke plant.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  84. Re:Fly Ash by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

    That's because clean coal doesnt exist.

  85. Re:The engineers responsible should be killed, slo by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    Eighteen thousand people died in the tsunami. How many have died due to the reactor? Which was the bigger disaster, and which deserves more press?

    Ah, but which disaster best serves the cheap political interests of the establishment? Coal plants are big big money, and closing down nuclear results in a lot of new ca$h for them. So we all know what's going on here, don't even pretend.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  86. Re:The engineers responsible should be killed, slo by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    You have me completely wrong. I see two fuckups:
    a) a nuke plant was left vulnerable and unprotected.
    b) 18,000 people were left vulnerable and unprotected.

    Fuckup (a) left no one dead, but maybe a few injured. Sure, it's an ongoing problem and yes, life for the people affected sucks. But fuckup (b) was way, way, way, worse. As you said, nothing can bring those people back. They are never going home. Better to lose your home than to die. Fuckup (b) also meant hundreds of thousands of other structures were destroyed or damaged. Fuckup (b) displaced more people than fuckup (a).

    And frankly, both fuckups were really the same fuckup. If engineers "knew" that the nuke plant was vulnerable, then naturally they "knew" what would happen to the rest of the coastline. They took no action on the plant - just like they took no action on the rest of the coastline. Fact is, it isn't an engineering problem at all - but one of economics. The nuke plant is not detached from the economic decisions that affected the rest of the coastline and ultimately led to the deaths of thousands of people.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  87. Re:The engineers responsible should be killed, slo by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    They weren't, as far as we know, acting with malice. I love how you armchair quarterback the plant design, but you have no strong words for the people who failed to protect actual human beings. It's a double-standard. The plant engineers haven't killed anyone - though even if a few die, they didn't allow people to live and work in the direct path of a tsunami.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  88. Re:The engineers responsible should be killed, slo by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Those towns were not built by a single entity, they developed over many years. There was no plan for safety from the start. Their initial location was chosen hundreds or even thousands of years ago, before such things were understood.

    In actual fact the risks were understood which is why evacuation procedures were put in place. The problem is that the tsunami was not detected early enough and the evacuation message did not spread quickly enough. In other words an attempt was made to make those people safe, but it failed. Securing such a large area is hard.

    On the other hand Fukushima was built relatively recently. It was known at the time what the largest earthquakes and tsunami might be. Even when it became known later on that there were potential problems the one entity responsible for mitigating them didn't. The cost wouldn't even have been that high, not like trying to defend kilometres of coastline.

    Unlike the towns affected TEPCO made little effort to address the issues, even though it was well within its power to do so.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  89. Scale by denbesten · · Score: 1

    300 tons (80,000 gallons) of water is approximately...

        * A city swimming pool
        * The amount they dropped on the ground
        * The amount they are leaking into the ocean each day.
        * The amount they are adding to the tank farm a day.

    Wow!

  90. Re:useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quick! Someone sell some land near Fukushima to this moron before he finds out about isotopes with medium half-lives!

  91. Re:Fly Ash by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

    I'm willing to accept the possiblity that carbon sequestration might be able to generate energy from coal -- potentially even with valuable by products like graphene generated via carbon vapor deposition. Radioactive waste is not a valuable by-product. Especially the shit that stays dangerously radioactive for either thousands or millions of years. Apparently there are 10,000 metric tons of it created each year.

  92. Re:Fly Ash by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

    where the eff are you going to put all the CO2 at powerplant scale? tests to date have been a mix of labbench and pilot project. Also consider that powerplants need to be located regionally. so you can't power the entire US from carlsbad caverns.

  93. Re:useless article by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    They'll be cleaned up before I move in. But seriously, I can't find any cheap land for sale around any of the accident sites for modern nuclear issues. I'd buy it if I could.

  94. Re:The engineers responsible should be killed, slo by dbIII · · Score: 1

    no strong words for the people who failed to protect actual human beings

    Totally different subject. Notice I'm also not talking about Christmas, onions or a variety of other unconnected topics in this thread.

  95. Re:The engineers responsible should be killed, slo by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Also as an engineer that has worked in power generation, though admittedly not nuclear, I'd like to point out that it is very amusing to be described as an "armchair quarterback" by someone like yourself.

  96. Re:useless article by Endovior · · Score: 1
    Evil? Really?

    That's a fairly absurd position. There is, in fact, a difference between a radiation dose you get all at once, and one that happens gradually over time... but Sieverts are specifically a measurement of dosage, and as such, are more generally useful when making quick estimates. True, the chart isn't perfect, but in terms of 'what you, the average guy, should know about radiation', as opposed to 'what a radiation worker or medical doctor needs to know about radiation' is a fairly wide gap. As noted by Randall himself, the comic is only a general education piece; if you, personally, happen to live in Japan, or are maybe considering a visit in the near future, by all means, do your own homework.

    That said, as noted by another AC, Sieverts are used in general parlance specifically because of that issue you mentioned. There are other, more technical measurements out there that factor radiation in different ways... but the Sievert is a more useful measurement, because it tells you what you need to know (how dangerous is this leak) right away, if you know how to read the figures. That's all the chart is for, to give you some context to let you read the figures, which gives you a sense of what a figure like '100 mSv/hour' actually means.

  97. Re:useless article by theheadlessrabbit · · Score: 1

    D'ho! looks like I got my "micro" and "milli" prefixes mixed up. Thanks for the correction.

    (using 40uSv as a flight from NYC to LA from the XKCD chard as a refrence point)

    --
    -I only code in BASIC.-
  98. Re:The engineers responsible should be killed, slo by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    Like you, I'm an engineer in an unrelated field. No one cares if one of my robots gets flooded, and no one cares if your conventional plant gets flooded. The tsunami/earthquake damaged at least 4 conventional power plants, and you barely heard a peep. It set fire to a pair of oil refineries that were extinguished after a couple of weeks, and the only news about those was regarding their role in oil shortages. The only engineers being flogged on this board are the nuke engineers, which is silly. NOTHING on the coast of Japan seems to have been protected against such an event - why single out the nuke plant?

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  99. Re:The engineers responsible should be killed, slo by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    How is it a different topic? It's the same disaster! Are you trying to separate out what happened at the nuke plant from the tsunami and earthquake? This wasn't Chernobyl.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  100. No it is not.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A puddle of the contaminated water was emitting 100 millisieverts an hour of radiation, equivalent to five year's maximum exposure for a site worker.

    If he would stay there for a whole hour then maybe it would be... I would prefer getting 100mSv over an hour instead of getting 100mSv exposure for a second...

    But also to be put into perspective. The limits the workers have are for their own saftey to lower the risk of cancer in their future. Sure this is not good to be around, but it's not that dangerous and should be 'fairly' easy to clean up.

  101. You have no clue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First of all there is such thing as a half-life for radioactive elements. Higher activity means shorter half-life and thus faster removal from the system. Lower activity means that it is active for longer, but not releasing as much radiation.

    There is also biological half-life as living things recycle their building blocks. For cesium (one of the commonest radioactive stuff leaked from Fukushima) it is 1-4 months. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_half-life

    Furhermore, current best scientific data says that small doses of radiation are actually preventing cancer:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stevens
    For scientific papers about this:
    http://bjr.birjournals.org/content/78/925/3.short
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00411-006-0032-9

  102. Re:The engineers responsible should be killed, slo by dbIII · · Score: 1

    why single out the nuke plant

    Because it's caused shitloads of hassles with a wide area having to be evacuated and the others haven't. It's human nature to be pissed off in such a situation.

  103. Re:The engineers responsible should be killed, slo by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    I understand it is human nature. I'm trying to argue that one should look past the emotional aspects and actually judge the nuclear catastrophe by the same criteria as the rest of the Japanese coast. Naturally radiation is way scarier than a big-ass wave, because at least you can see and understand the wave. But at the end of the day, the score is radiation:0, big wave: 18,000. The risks to the plant were known, but so were the risks to the people. Economics won out in both decisions.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  104. Re:The engineers responsible should be killed, slo by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately there's the twin aspects of it being a new threat instead of a well known one like a tsunami, and that the tsunami has been and gone while problems are still ongoing at the nuclear power station. Maybe this will finally be a wakeup call about storage of old fuel, which is one of the many stuffups in this situation which should be avoidable but requires co-operation between elements of the nuclear power industry that don't like to talk to each other and governments that want to pretend nuclear power doesn't exist.

  105. Level 3 by sim2com · · Score: 1

    It's been at Level 3 for several days already...